Michael Gates v. MARCELO, Dr.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GATES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARCELO, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56107
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02018-DDP-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Gates, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56107
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gates failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of Gates’s ear pain and hearing
impairment. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if
he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical
malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gates’s motions for
appointment of counsel because Gates failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting
forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel). Contrary
to Gates’s contention, the documents that Gates submitted did not require the
district court to hold a competency hearing. See Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150,
1153 (9th Cir. 2005).
We reject as meritless Gates’s contention that the district court erred in its
decision regarding Gates’s motion for an extension to complete discovery, because
the district court granted Gates’s motion and provided him with his requested
extension.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --